Culture Flipping: you may not like it but here are some historical examples....

[Kryten]

Many people have voiced their opinion of why they don't like culture flipping. Well, I represent the opposition party and I want to say that I not only like it but I think there should be MORE! Let me illistrate my point with the following historical examples:-

*Suppose I wanted to make a scenario about Alexander the Great (ok, at the moment I can't place cities with the current editor, but one day....). He didn't conquer every city in the Persian Empire, he didn't need to, because many cities (and the whole of Egypt) culture flipped and joined him. I want this to happen in my scenario. Still not convinced? Ok, lets try another one....

*I want to simulate the fall of the Roman Empire. Many cities were conqured by the invading Germans/Goths/Vandals/Franks, and many cities culture flipped and joined them. In fact, the city of Rome herself was conquered and sacked twice by the Goths and once by the Vandals, but each time she culture flipped back to Roman control. How about a later example....

*How can I simulate the breakup of the British Empire? Why, with culture flipping. The India Mutiny could be considered as a culture flip which the British crushed with military might. Later, in 1947, India again culture flipped only this time the British were too exausted by two World Wars to fight to regain it, so India gained it's independance (could it be that because of high corruption in distant cities the British couldn't build enough culture improvements?). And what happened to the armies in these culture flipping cites? Why, you could consider them as disbanded by the new government because of distrust of their loyalty. Now lets try something in more modern times....

*I my world history mod I want to change the name of the Zulus to that of "the African States" and not allow them to build any ships throughout the whole of the game. Several European states land and form colonial cities. Lets call two of these cities "Rhodesia" and "South Africa". Both these 'cities' had a period of colonial rule, followed by a period of white only rule. And I want both of them in my mod to culture flip and become under the control of the "Afican States", again with their garrisons disbanded by the new government. Sound realistic? One last example....

*You could consider breakup of the Soviet Empire in the 1990's as East Germany and Poland, along with several other former Warsaw Pack 'cities', culture flipping and joining the EEC. And their armies disbanded due to economic/political/logistical reasons.

IF YOU PERSUADE FIRAXIS TO REMOVE CULTURE FLIPPING, THEN HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SIMULATE ALL THESE EVENTS! You can't moan about the lack of scenarios if you take away such a valuable tool like this one! Most of the best scenarios made for civ1 and civ2 were made by the players themselves. But they need the tools to do it. And it makes the game far more challenging.

So Firaxis, if you ever read this, please don't remove culture flipping when you bring out your new Editor patch. Just add a button so that the whingers turn it off if they want. But leave the scenario builders all the tools they need to make realy interesting historical mods. I thank you.

 

[DrJambo]

hear hear, good post matey

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Kryten: noone wants it gone, but as you quite clearly show by your choice of examples, armies can be efficiently used to out down culture flip things. Distance to capital??? how far is India from london?????

No, what makes sense is having armies suppress flipping effectively in the early phases of the game. maybe later, when nationalism (and maybe a new tech called humanitaism) come round, happiness and culture point should play a larger role.

in war, revolter should hamper production, destroy improvements and so on and shouldn`t go away so soon, but as long as I garrison a city with one unit / opo point it shouldn`t be able to flip. maybe uprise, adn get burnt down, but can you imagine Paris flipping to the exile governement in 1943???? :crazyeyes :crazyeyes

I don`t think the Wehrmacht would have tolerated that... "Oh, that`s such a nice town, we`ll just disband ourselves instead of fighting that uprising!" - yeah RIGHT!

 

[Kryten]

To answer Killer,

....er....in reality, if all it takes is a garrison, then how do you explain Rhodesia and South Africa? They both had armies that were controlled by the white government, a government that didn't want to change. Their culture still 'flipped', in spite of any garrison (yes, there was guerrilla movement as well). And what about Mahatma Gandhi's campaign of passive civil disobedience in India?(athough I do admit, there was still a lot of terrorism, violence and sabotage). The British DID try to supress the freedom movement: look at the Amritsar Massacre of 1919. But all the British garrsons didn't stop India from gaining independance in the long run. And how do you explain the former Warsaw Pact countries breaking away from Soviet Russia? They WERE garrisoned, and with a vigilant secret police force as well. And there was no guerrilla/terrorist campaign of violence in this case.

The fact is this; history teaches us that not all changes of culture and control are violent. Sometimes, change DOES happen relatively peacefully, WITHOUT a major battle, DISPITE how big a garrison there is.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

as for Rhodsia, India and Warsaw pact - there wasn`t the will to kill enough people, harsh as that sounds. If you ask me, in civ I`d sometimes do it, sometimes not (that would give you a huge hit in reputation, make that HUGE)..... esentially it would be something similar to "ethnic cleansing" - I kill of the remaining former owners citizens and let my own people into the city.... Ugly concept for Civ, but rather more realistc then now.....

 

[Richard III]

I started a similar thread with a similar post eons ago, and I agree: from what I've seen, few people want it gone. Most - like me - just want to have some more sense to it (which Dan from Firaxis helpfully tried to do) and some more thought put into the whole "gobbling up the garrison" phenomonon.

 

[simwiz2]

"IF YOU PERSUADE FIRAXIS TO REMOVE CULTURE FLIPPING, THEN HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SIMULATE ALL THESE EVENTS! You can't moan about the lack of scenarios if you take away such a valuable tool like this one!"

I am sure that if Firaxis took it out, they would have an option for it in the editor, for the very reason that you want it, because MANY people willl want it for scenarios.

But really, should gameplay be sacrificed just so someone can make scenarios without actually having to check the box that would be in the editor that would say "Allow culture flips in this scenario"?

I happen to want culture flipping gone from regular games altogether, though I understand some people just want the garrison dissapearing fixed. But I think that a city alone can be important enough to make a random event effecting the ownership of it a gameplay-breaker.

 

[Mozenwrath]

Who could ever want to get rid of culture flipping??? I LOVE it! Civ games can get so boring at times with looooooonnnngggg periods of peace, a surprise culture flip or two can really spice things up. However, I definitely think that the presence of military units should have a larger impact on preventing a flip OR at least not disappear(sp). There's nothing more annoying than capturing an enemy capital, piling units in to quell the resistance, and then have them be eaten up by nasty, uncouth rebels! :crazyeyes

 

[Kryten]

To answer Simwitz:-

I was actually talking about the long awaited patch to fix the currently limited editor. And when Firaxis do bring out an editor patch, I assume they will do so in order to give players more power to modify the game to suit themselves and create scenarios. Otherwise, why have an editor at all? (by the way, the back of my box says "Includes a game editor, which enables you to change anything in the game - maps, scenarios and rules...").

 

[Troyens]

Originally posted by Kryten
Many people have voiced their opinion of why they don't like culture flipping. Well, I represent the opposition party and I want to say that I not only like it but I think there should be MORE! Let me illistrate my point with the following historical examples:-

*Suppose I wanted to make a scenario about Alexander the Great (ok, at the moment I can't place cities with the current editor, but one day....). He didn't conquer every city in the Persian Empire, he didn't need to, because many cities (and the whole of Egypt) culture flipped and joined him. I want this to happen in my scenario. Still not convinced? Ok, lets try another one....

*I want to simulate the fall of the Roman Empire. Many cities were conqured by the invading Germans/Goths/Vandals/Franks, and many cities culture flipped and joined them. In fact, the city of Rome herself was conquered and sacked twice by the Goths and once by the Vandals, but each time she culture flipped back to Roman control. How about a later example....

*How can I simulate the breakup of the British Empire? Why, with culture flipping. The India Mutiny could be considered as a culture flip which the British crushed with military might. Later, in 1947, India again culture flipped only this time the British were too exausted by two World Wars to fight to regain it, so India gained it's independance (could it be that because of high corruption in distant cities the British couldn't build enough culture improvements?). And what happened to the armies in these culture flipping cites? Why, you could consider them as disbanded by the new government because of distrust of their loyalty. Now lets try something in more modern times....

*I my world history mod I want to change the name of the Zulus to that of "the African States" and not allow them to build any ships throughout the whole of the game. Several European states land and form colonial cities. Lets call two of these cities "Rhodesia" and "South Africa". Both these 'cities' had a period of colonial rule, followed by a period of white only rule. And I want both of them in my mod to culture flip and become under the control of the "Afican States", again with their garrisons disbanded by the new government. Sound realistic? One last example....

*You could consider breakup of the Soviet Empire in the 1990's as East Germany and Poland, along with several other former Warsaw Pack 'cities', culture flipping and joining the EEC. And their armies disbanded due to economic/political/logistical reasons.

IF YOU PERSUADE FIRAXIS TO REMOVE CULTURE FLIPPING, THEN HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SIMULATE ALL THESE EVENTS! You can't moan about the lack of scenarios if you take away such a valuable tool like this one! Most of the best scenarios made for civ1 and civ2 were made by the players themselves. But they need the tools to do it. And it makes the game far more challenging.

So Firaxis, if you ever read this, please don't remove culture flipping when you bring out your new Editor patch. Just add a button so that the whingers turn it off if they want. But leave the scenario builders all the tools they need to make realy interesting historical mods. I thank you.

And just what are "whingers"?? Are they the people with brains enough to see how stupid much of this game is? Yea, them.

This was the stupidest most illogical post yet from the easily-pleased Firaxis apologists and shills out there.


The threads have been many here about the idiocy of Culture Flipping cities where huge garrisons vanish into thin air without even being able to take out a population point - that despite the nearby presence of even larger military forces ready to raze the city and slaughter the population the very next turn. I've seen that happen over and over, ad nauseam.

Cities have flipped despite the huge overall Cultural (and Power) DOMINANCE of the other civ; in otherwords, cities have flipped to the much smaller and weaker civ simply because of the number of that civ's laborers in the city. So overall Culture is meaningless; thus, the Alexander the Great reference is even more illogical than it might first appear.

Some Persian cities went to Alexander without a fight as they were SCARED TO DEATH of his military, not his "Culture"!! Alexander had left huge numbers of corpses throughout the Persian Empire and was especially vicious at Tyre and Gaza - two major sieges. The Mongols (among others) also captured many cities the same way - MILITARY dominance and terror. The Assyrians were masters at that, too, and even the Egyptians decorated their temples with carvings of severed body parts of their defeated enemy to terrorize others with their MILITARY prowess.

The Goths and Vandals were BARBARIANS, not a civilization. So of course Rome, initially, regained control. You want to simulate that just set Civ III to raging barbarians and increase the "advanced barbarian" unit to knight in Editor. But even the barbarians maintained control for long periods of time in The Meditterannean area due to their MILITARY dominance. Just reread your History.

The other "historical" references are too specious and false to comment on, except to say no Civilization game has ever reflected well native rebellions, and the British never sought to culturally control India - just economically and militarily. Poland was never a part of the Soviet Union except by MILITARY subjugation; when the Soviets went bankrupt and their military (what was left of it) was withdrawn by Gorbachev only THEN did Poland succeed in liberating itself.

Culture Flipping in Civ III has occured even over a city's borders and onto their developments including garrisoned fortresses; if you (as the victim) decide to fight for your improvements every other civ considers you a warmonger forever!


You misguided pseudo-history experts, who likely got a 'D' in 10th grade Global Studies, who think this Culture Flipping CRAP either adds to the game or is "realistic", well, enjoy yourselves.

As for me, if Firaxis doesn't get rid of this idiocy I'll end up playing something like "Empire Earth" instead of Civ III.

FIRAXIS, I want to be able to TOGGLE OFF Culture Flipping. It would be more realistic to have MILITARY flipping.

 

[macaskil]

Troyen's guide to Philosophy Part 1

1. Anyone who disagrees with Troyens is an idiot

2. er.... that's it

 

[Kryten]

Hello Troyens, thank you for joining the discussion,

I'm sorry that you have decided to take things so personally. It's my own fault really. I mean, fancy me thinking that I could voice an opinion on something. What was I thinking of! I must be mad or stupid.

Your points about the Mongols and Assyrians were quite valid, but I'm not so sure about Alexander. Yes, some cities were afraid of his military power, but many others just hated Persian rule so much that they welcomed the Macedonians. It wasn't that they admired Hellenistic culture, but more like they so hated their current Persan culture that they were willing to join the invaders. The same thing happened when the Arabs stormed into the Byzantine Empire in the 7th century AD. The people didn't admire the Arab culture (at that point the Arabs didn't have any!). They just hated the high taxes and religious intolerance of the Byzantines so much that large parts of the Empire went over to the Arabs almost without a fight. The only way to 'simulate' this at the moment in civ3 is by culture flipping.

As for the fall of the Roman Empire....er....I have "reread my History". You should "reread the rule book", because barbarians in civ3 cannot capture cities. So to make an 'historical' scenario about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the invading Goths/Vandals/Franks would have to be nations. And culture flipping could be used to 'simulate' all the treachery, rebellions and disloyalty that Emperor Honorius had to put up with (and you know as well as I do how many times putting a Roman garrison in a town simply led to that general rebelling, losing the town and the army). This would make a good scenario, but it needs culture flipping to abstractly simulate all the politics of the period, something that was not possible in civ2.

I have a question: did you used to enjoy all those old civ2 historical scenarios? (I'm not being sarcastic; I would genuinely like to know). Of couse, none of then were truly historicaly accurate, because of the limitations of the game. But many of them tried to get that elusive 'feel' of the period they were trying to represent, and that's what made them so enjoyable to me. I think that the differance between you and I is that I want to try and use all the existing features of civ3 to make new and interresting 'historical' scenarios, while you want to change the existing features into something that you think is better. There is nothing wrong in that. After all, if we don't complain then things wouldn't get changed would they (mind you, I DO disagree with your methods, which seem to consist of slagging-off and trying to belittle everybody who does not hold your opinion so that you end up as the loudest voice in the crowd. I know this long campaign of yours has made you a bit bitter and twisted. But it's ok, I don't mind, because I know your heart is in the right place).

Originally posted by Troyens


FIRAXIS, I want to be able to TOGGLE OFF Culture Flipping.

I agree. This feature should have an OFF toggle (there, you see? We CAN agree on something!).

 

[Panda]

Originally posted by Killer
as for Rhodsia, India and Warsaw pact - there wasn`t the will to kill enough people, harsh as that sounds. If you ask me, in civ I`d sometimes do it, sometimes not (that would give you a huge hit in reputation, make that HUGE)..... esentially it would be something similar to "ethnic cleansing" - I kill of the remaining former owners citizens and let my own people into the city.... ]

Maybe the average Civ3 garrison commander has more of a conscience than the average Civ3 player, thus refusing to give the order to open fire on peacuful demonstrators and handing over the keys of the city?

Instead, he gives his men the order to lay down their weapons and lay down with the grateful females - I'd love to serve under that kind of a guy

 

[pompeynunn]

Whilst reading a lot of the posts from people who either do or don't like culture flipping, it strikes me that the nationality of the person seems to have some correlation on whether they like it or not.

This is just my observation (there isn't 100% correlation, and I don't intend it as a slight on Americans - I know how touchy you Yanks can be sometimes! ), but it seems that the majority of people who don't like Culture flipping are American - could this be because in their (albeit brief) history as a nation, they haven't had the experience of elements of their 'Empire' (or Civ or global power - call it what you want) revolting and declaring independence.

Us Brits, on the other hand, have had to get used to it (USA, India, Rhodesia to name a few - there is even suggestions that Gibraltar could be next). Therefore the idea of culture flipping seems much more reasonable to us. (The same could probably be said of a lot of European countries, especially Eastern European).

 

[Kryten]

That's an insightful observation Pompeynunn! I never noticed before (do you fancy starting a poll about this? I for one would be very interested in the results).

And also to Panda. Your right, we civ players do seem to think that our every command will be obeyed without question.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Killer
Kryten: noone wants it gone, but as you quite clearly show by your choice of examples, armies can be efficiently used to out down culture flip things. Distance to capital??? how far is India from london?????

India is an excellent example. Please keep in mind that Civ3 is just an abstraction.

First the Europeans settled the coast and extracted concessions. At that time though, the outposts were in constant danger of an immediate flip back to native control. Finally, Wellington subdued the continent. In Civ3, this would be equivalent to conquering the majority of its largest cities. The Great Leader built a Colonial Palace. The British also built a temple (the "club"), the barracks, and created native infantry. This is a classic Civ3 strategy. Subdue the subcontinent, get a Leader from that process, and consolidate your rule. Britain had to buy most improvements, but they made a fortune trading the luxury goods to other European powers. This is also classic Civ3.

Later on, Britain's imperial culture was seriously stressed by the world wars, and India reverted. The garrison either went native or was disbanded. The native infantry stayed put.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Mozenwrath
Who could ever want to get rid of culture flipping??? I LOVE it! Civ games can get so boring at times with looooooonnnngggg periods of peace, a surprise culture flip or two can really spice things up. However, I definitely think that the presence of military units should have a larger impact on preventing a flip OR at least not disappear(sp). There's nothing more annoying than capturing an enemy capital, piling units in to quell the resistance, and then have them be eaten up by nasty, uncouth rebels! :crazyeyes

Gee whiz. You expect them not to fight being taken over by a foreign tyrant?

As far as garrisons, when Antony flipped to Egypt, his legions went with him. And it was definitely a "culture" flip. Antony was famous for having adopted Egyptian culture.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel


India is an excellent example. Please keep in mind that Civ3 is just an abstraction.

First the Europeans settled the coast and extracted concessions. At that time though, the outposts were in constant danger of an immediate flip back to native control. Finally, Wellington subdued the continent. In Civ3, this would be equivalent to conquering the majority of its largest cities. The Great Leader built a Colonial Palace. The British also built a temple (the "club"), the barracks, and created native infantry. This is a classic Civ3 strategy. Subdue the subcontinent, get a Leader from that process, and consolidate your rule. Britain had to buy most improvements, but they made a fortune trading the luxury goods to other European powers. This is also classic Civ3.

Later on, Britain's imperial culture was seriously stressed by the world wars, and India reverted. The garrison either went native or was disbanded. The native infantry stayed put.

In real world examples the distance to capital doesn`t matter - reaction time does. That`s all I meant.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Troyens
You misguided pseudo-history experts, who likely got a 'D' in 10th grade Global Studies, who think this Culture Flipping CRAP either adds to the game or is "realistic", well, enjoy yourselves.

FIRAXIS, I want to be able to TOGGLE OFF Culture Flipping. It would be more realistic to have MILITARY flipping.

You've pissed me off enough that I'm going to take some time next week when I've got a free afternoon to write a goddamn paper on the subject, Troyens, because I'm the kid of a history professor who writes history as my side job, and for the record I got something considerably better than a "D." And you know what? Take my word for it. Culture flipping as a concept is AS realistic as anything else in the game, at least.

As for a toggle, well, why not? As for less damage to military garrisons, I agree.

 

[LaRo]

I agree with Richard III.

And I think that those who don't like culture flip back usually go for a military conquest and don't build enough cultural improvement. So they don't like it because it's only a pain in the ass for their conquest.

We are not in civ2. Adapt you strategy! But those who really can't should be able to play without.